If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On June 201, the Defendant is the Dong 212 representative of Sungnam-si, and the above apartment management office of the apartment, and the fact was that Sungnam-si did not notify the victim that the victim D violated the Housing Act and subordinate statutes, the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives of the above apartment. However, the above apartment residents “D is subject to guidance at the council of occupants' representatives. D still is the president even though he was dismissed through the voting of the occupants on April 18, 201 in violation of the Housing Act and the Management Rules of the apartment, in accordance with the Housing Act, in accordance with the Housing Act and the Rules of the Management of the Apartment, it is difficult to enforce the procedure for removal as it is clear that D is under the law. D is dismissed, and its official seal and banking were not returned to the president, and it is recognized that transactions were changed by disclosing the unique number of the chairperson at the tax office, but it can be recognized as changing the identification number of the victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A copy of a notice or written judgment;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion against the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the public interest of apartment residents.